lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48EE8D06.9060503@nortel.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:00:22 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: cgroup task groups appears sensitive to absolute magnitude of shares


When using cgroups-based task groups, the amount of cpu time for each 
class should be based on the relative shares of the different groups.

However, my testing shows that the absolute value of the shares matters 
as well, with larger shares values giving more accurate results (to a 
point).  Consider the two testcases below, where the only difference is 
that in the second case all the shares are increased by a factor of 10. 
  Notice that the accuracy in group 4 is significantly improved.


[root@...alhost schedtest]#  ./fairtest  test5.dat
using settling delay of 1 sec, runtime of 2 sec
group hierarchy (name, weight, hogs, expected usage):
1,    40,   2, 55.555553
2,    20,   2, 27.777777
3,    10,   2, 13.888888
4,     2,   2, 2.777778
group       actual(%)    expected(%)   avg latency(ms)  max_latency(ms)
       1        54.90         55.56               5/5              6/57
       2        27.43         27.78               8/7              63/8
       3        13.71         13.89             12/13            18/379
       4         3.96          2.78               7/7             57/57



[root@...alhost schedtest]# ./fairtest  test3.dat
using settling delay of 1 sec, runtime of 10 sec
group hierarchy (name, weight, hogs, expected usage):
1,   400,   2, 55.555557
2,   200,   2, 27.777779
3,   100,   2, 13.888889
4,    20,   2, 2.777778
group      actual(%)    expected(%)   avg latency(ms)  max_latency(ms)
       1        55.20         55.56               5/5             22/31
       2        28.02         27.78               7/8             23/21
       3        14.00         13.89             12/11             20/33
       4         2.78          2.78               9/9             24/20


I suspect that this is due to the following calculation in 
__update_group_shares_cpu():

shares = (sd_shares * rq_weight) / (sd_rq_weight + 1);

Because these are integers, the result will give greater rounding error 
when sd_shares is small.

Going to 4000/2000/1000/200 doesn't seem to give noticeable 
improvements, and going to 40000/20000/10000/2000 causes the test to 
behave unpredictably, either taking abnormally long to complete or else 
not completing at all.

Is it worth doing anything about this (automatic normalization of group 
shares?), or should we just document this behaviour somewhere and live 
with it?

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ